Registered bored user

bliznik wrote:
What kind of clinical psychologist breaks the world down into people who either fix themselves or blame others? The world isn't so simplistic.

There are many different viewpoints, and many different ways to improve a situation.

(1) Improve yourself - Always start with this, since you have the most control over your own actions. Some of your actions you don't have as much control of as you may think (ask any clinical psychologist). But as you try, and fail, time and time again, you will learn what you don't have control over, and then you can get help. (e.g. friends, family, training courses, psychologist/psychiatrist, sometimes meds)

(2) Improve your environment - This can take many forms--some with activism, some with communication, some with help, some with just moving to a better environment, etc. Any husband who wants to improve his marriage by only changing himself without communicating with or working with his wife doesn't deserve to be in a marriage. Relationships are about working together. This is true for all relationships, whether they be marriages, coworkers, taking a trip together with friends, or even working on a school project.

I do think that blaming others isn't the way to go. Blame is just negative, and people tend to be defensive. But communicating with another person in a constructive way, for example by saying, "I would really like you to do A for me, because of B. If you do, I'd like to do C for you in return. What are your thoughts?" can be enormously beneficial for a relationship, even if that person never does what you ask them to do.

Everyone does have the power to change other people, but that power is very limited, and if you cannot communicate or wield that power effectively, then that power is sometimes useless. But equating efforts to improve your environment with blame is just ridiculous.
bliznik wrote:
I don't know if I like it or hate it.

But I'll definitely always remember it...
bliznik wrote:
Does it now officially matter who portrays what in movies and television? Does it matter to you?

For me? Absolutely.

For all entertainment media that I consume, I want the people involved to be talented, passionate, realistic, and have an intrinsic understanding of the role they are playing.

Passion projects like Deadpool, Get Out, Slumdog Millionaire, Memoirs of a Geisha--they are so good when the people involved are passionate about every aspect of the movie.

Does that mean that an actor for an Asian role has to be Asian or the actor for a trans-gender role has to be trans-gender? No. That just means that it's not as "realistic" or "true to the origin story." But, IMO, race-appropriate or gender-appropriate actors should be favored by casting agents, and if the casting agents pick someone who does not have that background, that person should excel at the other attributes (talent, passion, intrinsic understanding of the role they are playing).

I'm not sure the background of this story. Did they audition hundreds of trans-actresses and Scarlett Johansson, find that Scarlett was better than all of those trans-actresses, and then cast Scarlett? Or did they just look for existing A-list stars and hired the most marketable one? I would guess that it was the latter--and if that is so, I think that's a pretty crappy decision.
bliznik wrote:
Did that make him uglier?
bliznik wrote:
Did that need to be repeated 3 times?
bliznik wrote:
Brings a new visual to the term "Catfished"
bliznik wrote:
melcervini It's more a failure of law enforcement to take measures against those who harass and make death threats. Seriously, if this stuff is reported adequately and accurately, why can't steps be taken to curtail this behavior?

I'm all for free speech, but I do think that it's OK to criminalize certain types of hate speech--like "I'm going to kill you." Is that so wrong?
bliznik wrote:
Isn't family trauma hilarious? Look, a kid almost died! *womp* *womp*

What other awful things can we make a joke out of? How about genital mutilation or genocide? It's funnier when it happens to extremely poor people, because they're so different than us.
bliznik wrote:
Better to say we are running out of CHEAP sand and we are running out of QUALITY sand.

We can make subpar, expensive sand no problem.
bliznik wrote:
Goes deeper than that, mate. Much.

Could you expand on that or cite an article that does? I see the need for asylum, and I see the hunger for better regulation, but I don't really understand why the U.S. should claim sole responsibility for everything that's going on south of its border.
bliznik wrote:

AFIK, the only way America has contributed to the destabilization of Latin America has been our war on drugs, which has incentivized black market drug dealers who sell their goods to America.

Which is an issue, yes, but America has incentivized black market drug dealers all across the world--yet only Latin America has these issues. In my superficial research, it seems like the biggest issue with Latin America is their high murder rate. People can shoot other people there with little to no consequence. It's like every shooter in Latin America is a white police officer. 

So, OK, America can do some international outreach programs to help out in that regard, but for the most part I feel like it's Latin America's problem, no? We can send out Red Cross and Peace Corps and penitentiary instructors to help them understand how to collect and prosecute murderers using DNA evidence and witnesses, but I fail to see how America's directly responsible for Latin America's destabilization.
bliznik wrote:
I think our current system works relatively well we just need to cut the Asylum b*******

...or just modify it. People fleeing for their lives should be able to go to a safer place. But it's possible to flee to a different city in that country, or to a neighboring country, without having to flee to America. I would be OK with that.

I think the system is broken as all heck. The rules need to be applied equally and with certainty.
bliznik wrote:
Trump is just following the law like he is supposed to.

Legislative branch - makes the law
Executive branch - enforces the law
Judicial branch - interprets the law

Laws can be enforced many different ways. For example, you can push for maximum penalties for users of crack, minimum penalties for users of cocaine, maximum penalties for sellers of marijuana, and minimum penalties for white-collar crimes.

Here, Trump (a) severely decreased the number of legal visas, (b) prevented asylum seekers from even attempting to petition for asylum at legal ports of entry, and (c) arrested and separated families entering the U.S. outside the legal ports of entry. 

Other presidents didn't enforce the law like that because enforcing the law in that manner is inhumane. Is it his right? Yes. Can we, as citizens, protest and hold him accountable for enforcing the law like that? Yes.
bliznik wrote:
We should probably do what we have historically done:

(1) Enforce objective and peer-reviewed vetting programs to deport dangerous immigrants (Oh, and being poor isn't a danger, not having a college degree isn't a danger, having a brown skin color isn't a danger)
(2) Levy a fine/tax on immigrants who don't meet legal eligibility requirements. Don't allow them to have a path to citizenship, or make their path to citizenship that much harder. Give them basic rights, but let them know that their life in America will be more difficult here than for other immigrants because they don't meet legal eligibility requirements. 
(3) Work with the U.N. to improve basic living standards in 3rd world countries and deincentivize migration by making it safer and more pleasant to live in those 3rd world countries.

...or we could just handicap legal immigration, be surprised at the uptick of illegal immigration, severely decrease the number of "points of entry" for non-citizens without visas, and then destroy family units that walk up to a border checkpoint that isn't an "authorized point of entry." I'm guessing @dm2754 thinks this is the better solution?
bliznik wrote:
monkwarrior Is it difficult to go through life judging everyone with so much hate in your heart? Or does it come easy to you?
bliznik wrote:
monkwarrior Sure thing. Good luck with that.
bliznik wrote:
dm2754 Since when do we punish the son for the sins of their father?
bliznik wrote:
johncourage If more detention facilities were run by SouthWest Key, that would be awesome. The truth of the matter is...most detention facilities are run by DHS. 

If Congress were to throw some funding at this so that all the facilities were the quality of SouthWest Key facilities, that would be awesome.

It doesn't solve the issue of separating families--which is the major political issue right now, but at least it addresses the video above.
bliznik wrote:
emmettyville Yeah, there have always been cages for illegal immigrants--both for adults and for juveniles.

The new practice that people are protesting is the separation of children from their parents. THAT is what is being protested.

This video is a conflation of the two issues.

I agree that unaccompanied minors should probably be housed in better facilities before appropriate foster care is found for them. I don't think that the same should occur with families--families should probably be deported together, and should be housed in similar better facilities.
bliznik wrote:
monkwarrior So...a purely subjective test that cannot be objectively verified then. Got it.
bliznik wrote:
dm2754 If I had 2000 immigrants each paying me $400 a month on rent (easily made working a week outside of Home Depot in my area), that is an income of $9.6 million a year. To build permanent supportive housing for the homeless (housing, food, mental health services, and some counseling), it costs about $613 per year.

Considering that current illegal immigrants pay about $1000 per year (and that's only the small fraction of illegal immigrants who are brave enough to send anonymous checks to the IRS every year), that's not unreasonable.

So, yeah, I'd be able to support that.
bliznik wrote:
monkwarrior There is an objective, verifiable, repeatable process that allows people to collect data on the existence of God? Oh man, please do share. I'd love to hear this one...
bliznik wrote:
I still don't understand why we can't just impose a fine on illegal immigrants. Give them a social security number, allow them to work, impose a hefty, hefty fine far above and beyond the cost of immigrating to the U.S. legally. This covers the cost of law enforcement, brings in income to the U.S., and deters immigrants from coming into the U.S. illegally while encouraging them to come to the U.S. legally. 

Why is deportation the only solution to illegal immigration?